- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pramod Mahto And Others v. State Of Bihar .
Factual and Procedural Background
The four appellants (arrayed as A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-1 before the Sessions Judge) were charged, along with others, for gang rape and theft committed during the night of March 16/17, 1984. According to the prosecution, the five principal accused entered the victims’ house through the roof, with Accused 1–4 raping multiple women while Accused 5 guarded them with a gun. After the assault, valuables were taken from the house. An FIR was lodged the next morning, and medical examination revealed injuries consistent with rape on PW 1.
The Sessions Judge acquitted Accused 6–16 and acquitted Accused 1–5 on the theft charge, but convicted Accused 1–4 directly, and Accused 5 constructively, of gang rape under Section 376 IPC, imposing life imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the High Court maintained the convictions; it reduced Accused 5’s sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment (RI) while affirming life sentences for Accused 1–4. The present special-leave petition to the Supreme Court was entertained only on the question of sentence for Accused 1–4.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the life sentences imposed on Accused 1–4 for gang rape should be reduced, particularly in light of the High Court’s reduction of sentence for Accused 5.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Sought to contest the convictions, alleging communal bias, delay in filing the FIR, and biological improbability of successive rapes; these grounds were rejected at the threshold.
- On sentence, contended that the Sessions Judge wrongly imposed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment; the statutory minimum of ten years’ RI would suffice.
- Claimed parity with Accused 5, whose sentence had been reduced to two years’ RI by the High Court.
Respondent State's Arguments
- Opposed parity, emphasising that Accused 1–4 personally committed the rapes, whereas Accused 5 merely stood guard.
- Submitted that any reduction should not go below the statutory minimum of ten years’ RI prescribed by Section 376 IPC.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court declined to reopen the question of guilt, noting:
- The improbability arguments did not explain the medical evidence of rape on the minor PW 1.
- Under Explanation I to Section 376(2)(g) IPC, all accused acting with common intention are guilty of gang rape irrespective of individual physical acts.
On sentencing, the Court differentiated among the accused:
- Accused 1 (Dr. Bharti) played the “leading role” and therefore merited the maximum sentence; no mitigating circumstances justified reduction.
- For Accused 2–4, the State conceded absence of special circumstances warranting life imprisonment. The statutory minimum of ten years’ RI was deemed a “severe punishment” adequate to meet the ends of justice.
Holding and Implications
PARTLY ALLOWED. The sentences of Accused 2–4 (Appellants 1–3) are reduced from life imprisonment to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. The life sentence of Accused 1 (Appellant 4, Dr. Bharti) stands affirmed.
Implications: The decision provides sentence relief to three appellants but sets no new legal precedent; it applies the statutory sentencing framework of Section 376 IPC to the specific facts, reaffirming judicial discretion to differentiate sentences based on individual roles in a gang-rape offence.
S. Natarajan, J.— After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we grant special leave confined to the question of sentence only.
2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs 1000 in default to undergo RI for two years. The four appellants who were arrayed as A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-1 will hereafter be referred to in the order of their array before the Sessions Judge.
3. The four appellants and one Umesh Mahto (Accused 5) besides 11 others who were acquitted were charged under Sections 380 and 376 read with Section 149 IPC for having entered the house of the victims and committing rape on them and thereafter removing cash and valuables from the house on the night of March 16/17, 1984. The prosecution case was that while Accused 6 to 16 stood outside the house, Accused 1 to 5 entered the house through the roof after dismantling a portion of it and thereafter Accused 1 to 4 committed rape on the victims while Accused 5 stood guard over them with a gun in his hands in order to overawe them and make them submit to the rape committed on them without protest. Accused 1 to 4 are said to have committed rape first on PW 1 Jaiboon Nisa, an unmarried girl aged about 15 or 16 years and thereafter Accused 1 caught hold of PW 2 Roshanara to commit rape on her but on her entreating him that she may be spared as she was pregnant she was released and thereafter Accused 1 to 4 committed rape on PW 6 Sakina Khatoon, a sister-in-law of PW 2 Roshanara. Then Accused 1 and 4 are said to have committed rape on Maimum Nisa, another sister-in-law of PW 2 Roshanara. Thereafter Accused 1 to 5 are said to have opened the boxes kept in the house and removed cash and articles and left the place.
4. After the culprits had left the house the victims went to the house of one Latif Mian and spent the rest of the night there and in the morning they went to the police station and PW 1 Jaiboon Nisa lodged the first information report.
5. The investigation in the case was conducted by Sub-Inspector late Mahdev Prasad and after his death by PW 9 Sub-Inspector Govind Prasad.
6. The victims were sent to the hospital and were examined by PW 7 Dr. Abha Singh. Though the doctor could not find visible symptoms of sexual assault on the married women Sakina Khatoon and Maimum Nisa, she found telltale marks and injuries on the unmarried girl PW 1 Jaiboon Nisa to show that she had been subjected to rape.
7. The Sessions Judge acquitted Accused 6 to 16 of both the charges and Accused 1 to 5 of the charge under Section 380 IPC. He, however, found Accused 1 to 4 directly guilty under Section 376 IPC and Accused 5 Umesh Mahto also constructively guilty under Section 376 IPC by invoking Explanation I to clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 IPC and sentenced all the five accused to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs 1000 each in default to undergo RI for 2 years.
8. In the appeals preferred by the five convicted accused, the High Court confirmed the convictions and sentences of Accused 1 to 4 and in the case of Accused 5, while confirming his conviction under Section 376 IPC, the High Court reduced the sentence to RI for 2 years. It is in such circumstances Accused 1 to 4 have approached this Court with the special leave petition.
9. Mr A.K Sen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, sought leave to canvass the conviction of the appellants on its merits and contended that the case has been foisted on the appellants due to communal feelings, that there has been inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and that the prosecution case that the appellants had committed rape in succession on a plurality of victims is a biological impossibility and hence the prosecution case is wholly unworthy of acceptance. We found no merit in those contentions because even if communal feelings had run high, it is inconceivable that an unmarried girl and two married women would go to the extent of staking their reputation and future in order to falsely set up a case of rape on them for the sake of communal interests. As regards the delay in lodging the first information report, the Sessions Judge and the High Court have considered the matter fully and held that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and we found no reason to differ from the view taken by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. Insofar as the last contention is concerned, we found that the defence has not been able to explain how else PW 1 Jaiboon Nisa, an unmarried girl aged about 15 or 16 years, could have come to sustain the telltale marks and injuries of rape on her persons as were found by PW 1 Dr. Abha Singh unless she had been raped by the appellants. Once it is established that the appellants had acted in concert and entered the house of the victims and thereafter raped PW 1 Jaiboon Nisa, then all them would be guilty under Section 376 IPC in terms of Explanation I to clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 IPC irrespective of whether she had been raped by one or more of them. The Explanation in question reads as under:
“Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section.”
10. This Explanation has been introduced by the legislature with a view to effectively deal with the growing menace of gang rape. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused “on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one in order to find the accused guilty of gang rape and convict them under Section 376 IPC.
11. It was on account of these factors we declined leave to the appellants to canvass the correctness of their conviction under Section 376 IPC and granted leave confined only to the question of sentence when Mr A.K Sen made a fervent plea that at least in the matter of sentence the accused are entitled to be heard. It was urged by him that there was no compelling reason for the Sessions Judge to have awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for life on Accused 1 to 4 instead of awarding them the minimum sentence which is by itself adequately rigorous viz. RI for ten years. It was also urged by him that when the High Court had modified the sentence on Accused 5 from imprisonment for life to RI for 2 years, the High Court should have similarly reduced the sentence of Accused 1 to 4 also. Learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that Accused 1 to 4 cannot seek parity of treatment with Accused 5 in the matter of sentence because they had actually committed rape on PW 1 Jaiboon Nisa and the other victims. He, however, said that if any reduction of sentence is ordered, the reduction should not be below the minimum sentence of ten years RI prescribed under Section 376 IPC.
12. Having given the matter our due consideration, we are not inclined to modify the sentence imposed on Accused 1 Dr. Bharti because of the leading role played by him in the commission of the offences. However, in the case of Accused 2 to 4 viz. Appellants 1 to 3 we think that the ends of justice would be met by awarding them the minimum sentence of ten years RI, as it is by itself a severe punishment, and because of the admission made on behalf of the State that there are no special circumstances to call for the imposition of the maximum sentence of imprisonment for life on these three appellants. Consequently, we allow the appeal in part insofar as Appellants 1 to 3 (Accused 2 to 4) are concerned and modify their sentence of imprisonment for life to RI for ten years and dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates to Appellant 4 Dr. Bharti (Accused 1). The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert